Studland Bay summary

[Searush]

The report is very much a financial assessment of the business case for moorings - and on that level it is well written.

Willing to moor on a rubber band? The majority of those mooring will only see that there is a handy bouy to tie to, they will not know or care what is underneath. The suggestion is that most will not be overnighting anyway, which seems likely to me too.

Their reliability (or otherwise) will only be proven by use & I certainly wouldn't worry about using one, cos any failure would soon be well publicised!

 

[alahol2]

One of the assumptions made in that report, if I read it correctly, is that the 'free anchoring area' will only be available once all moorings are taken. Which means, for 200 moorings, for 99% of the year there would be no free anchoring. Apart from anything else, 200 regimented mooring buoys in the bay would be an absolute travesty.

 

[oldharry]

From the supporting introduction when the report was launched on thursday it seems the suggestion of 200 buoys was an attempt to get a best case scenario benchmark for the business model. The growing feeling is that 50 EFMs plus anchoring should meet the conservation need, though this is still being argued.

The brief for the report specified providing moorings for all visiting boats as a base line, and then working back to see if there was an optimum number which improved economic viability. Unsuprisingly, as we see, there is not.

 

[prv]

The growing feeling is that 50 EFMs plus anchoring should meet the conservation need, though this is still being argued.

Is there an assumption that anchoring would be an "overflow" option, only used once all the bungee moorings are taken? Because I often prefer to anchor, especially where there are lots of moorings and lying to my own gear will let me get a little further from the crowd.

Pete

 

[Nicholas123]

This doesnt tell us how many seahorse have been killed as a result of tagging, no one will ever know, but I'll let you draw your own conclusions what may have happened. You will observe here that the number of divers increases after the BBC and Chris Packham publicise yet again the location of this protected species. Can you hear the outcry if they did the same with the location of, say, a peregrine falcon nest!

The report is from the Studland bay group.


"The diver reports ran from 10/4/11 through until 30/9/11 and were limited to divers diving from the beach in Daylight.

The Total =278

and the break up for each month is :

April =14
May=38
June=49
July=68
August=75
September =34

Most of the dives took place on Fridays and Saturdays with the SHT coming down around 0830 hrs and diving for 2.0 hrs

The independent divers were normally spread over the Friday and Saturdays too but would be much later in arriving ,after lunch and dive for approx 1.5 hrs .

It is has been confirmed that these independent divers were hoping to catch sight of Seahorses .

Examples of reports are :

18/6/11 ..Saturday 12 Divers 9 SHT with 3 independent

29/8/11..Bank Holiday Monday 15 divers SHT

30/9/11 ...Friday late Sept heatwave 10 divers 6 of which were SHT and 4 independent .

Between 15/6/11 and 29/7/11 there were numerous reports of night time Polish divers diving off South Beach in groups of 12 -17 ,using spearguns , very bright lights and normally arriving in a minibus and van after midnight.
These divers were interviewed by Dorset Police on the night of the 29/7/11 and were warned about the noise and disturbance to villagers and sheltering boats , they said they were only fishing and did not return .
On the 31/7/11 the South Beach Cafe was broken into and a fire was started causing major damage ,nothing was stolen but all fridge doors were left open .

So together with these Polish divers and a couple of divers working from the Middle Beach the real total could be much higher around 350 in total.

There were 7 people submitting reports on Divers , their names are available ,but have been witheld by request .

Prior to 2007 the average divers seen throught the summer was normally less than 10 ."

The one observation I have made from this, is that on several occasions, there will have been far more diving activity than boating!

Simply astonishing that those idiots can be so short sighted.

 

[oldharry]

Is there an assumption that anchoring would be an "overflow" option, only used once all the bungee moorings are taken? Because I often prefer to anchor, especially where there are lots of moorings and lying to my own gear will let me get a little further from the crowd.

Pete

Thats what we (i.e. BORG and RYA) are pushing for. Nobody is actually saying no anchoring any more, but some are still unhappy about it. The ideal will be if the moorings are there for those who want them - which DWT survey figures suggest would be 2 out of 3 boats. I myself prefer to lie to my own ground tackle generally so dont want to see this stopped here!

 

[oldharry]

The report is very much a financial assessment of the business case for moorings - and on that level it is well written.

Willing to moor on a rubber band? The majority of those mooring will only see that there is a handy bouy to tie to, they will not know or care what is underneath. The suggestion is that most will not be overnighting anyway, which seems likely to me too.

Their reliability (or otherwise) will only be proven by use & I certainly wouldn't worry about using one, cos any failure would soon be well publicised!

I think that is right. There is the probability that a pilot scheme will be funbded and run to see whether they work. Studland proposed obtaining a hulk, and leaving it on an EFM in a more exposed part of the bay. They would then monitor how soon it comes ashore! This suggestion was actually widely welcomed, and the feasability of a pilot study by MMO on these lines is being looked at.

 

[Twister_Ken]

Surely a hulk would damage the grass on its way ashore.

 

[oldharry]

Surely a hulk would damage the grass on its way ashore.

 

[Seajet]

I love the idea of using a hulk to test these moorings, we could hold a contest as to what boat qualifies, I'm sure Sunseekers could provide something...

Having researched these Environmentally Friendly Moorings ( EFM's ) a bit, I'm with Old Harry, I'll stick to my trusty Bruce ta very much, it's seen me through 2 severe gales at Studland; and as mentioned before, with a 'council corkscrew mooring' one never knows if it was last used by a 50 footer in a gale and is hanging on by its' toenails !

 

[oldharry]

BORG responds to the Crown Estates report

The following has been circulated to MMO, Crown Estates, Seahorse Trust, and various other organisations concerned with the Studland Debate:

BORG responds to Crown Estates Report on Studland Bay EFMs:

BORG supporters have welcomed the Crown Estates report on the viability of EFMs. However, with confirmation of the high costs involved, boat owners and others further question Finding Sanctuary's 'recovery' designation for the Bay.

BORG joins the RYA in saying there is not nearly enough factual evidence to support the claim that anchoring is the main factor in the reported degradation of the Bay. No one disagrees that a degree of anchor damage does take place each year but the available reports provide no clear evidence that this is a major factor in the Bay environment. The assumption that it is, is seen as simplistic and the proposal to throw an expensive solution at it could, many fear, cause a great deal more damage.

The facts as we see them are:

1. There is no evidence of the actual levels of damage occurring each season.

2. There is no evidence of the cumulative effect of anchoring over a period of years. The two year sampling period reported so far, and the basis for the Finding Sanctuary recommendation is totally inadequate. The historical evidence - which is all that is available at present - is that any damage occurring is well contained, is clearly sustainable, and has remained so for over 50 years of heavy use as an anchorage.

3. No data sets exist of the present overall health, disposition and extent of the eelgrass bed. How therefore can 'recovery' be monitored particularly in view of eelgrass's known seasonal responses to local environmental variations? At least five years study will be necessary judging by evidence collected in other parts of the world.

4. There are many other well documented factors known to affect eelgrass that have not been researched at Studland. The eelgrass is described as 'downgraded' but there is no local benchmark to define or confirm this. Questions remain for example about the level and effect of nitrate run off (particularly evident in the bay this season); desalination from chalk springs in the bay, and the effect of varying ground water table; silting from harbour dredging ops, and local spoil dumping grounds; other natural events and accidents, and a range of other possible factors which may or may not be influencing the Bays development.

Sustainability can not be properly evaluated without this information, and remains at present largely a matter of 'informed opinion'. It can be argued local residents opinions although intuitive must hold equal validity, coming as it does from many years daily experience and observation of the Bay. Yet their views continue to be ignored, and are specifically rejected by the Science Advisory Panel who insist only verifiable data (which does not exist here) is taken in to account.

There is wide agreement with the Ministerial Statement (15/11) that evidence supporting the creation of MCZs should be robust: If there IS a problem in Studland that can be solved by reducing or eliminating anchoring, then the expenditure of £3/4m or more may well be justifiable. BORG welcomes the CE report but sees the issue it addresses as at present nothing more than a costly solution looking for a problem.

 

[reginaldon]

I've just read in a local freebie that as Seahorses amongst other things have been found between Folkestone and Dover and they hope to make the area a MCZ Perhaps we need not worry about Dover Harbour falling into foreign hands as they might ban all those nasty ferries.

 

[alahol2]

Old Harry
Nicely reasoned, logical, non rant. Let's hope someone reads it.
I hope you included your sig at the bottom.

 

[Seajet]

I've just read in a local freebie that as Seahorses amongst other things have been found between Folkestone and Dover and they hope to make the area a MCZ Perhaps we need not worry about Dover Harbour falling into foreign hands as they might ban all those nasty ferries.

I suspect that bright idea might get the same response / salute to the career conservationists as the Port Of London Authority gave; involving 2 fingers at most !

 

[Twister_Ken]

Many thanks to BORG

 

[oldharry]

Old Harry
Nicely reasoned, logical, non rant. Let's hope someone reads it.
I hope you included your sig at the bottom.

Yes. It has certainly been put in the right places to be read - whether it will be is another matter, but responses so far suggest several key people are at least 'taking note', including the MMO.

 

[Clammer]

Studland Bay Preservation Association which stands for-leave Studland Bay free of unnecessary regulation and free for all to continue their recreational pursuits- has objected to Natural England concerning the gradings given by The Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP) to Studland Bay. The gradings 4, 5, 4 mean that it will almost certainly be put forward to the Government for MCZ status.
The gradings refer to:
1.Broadscale habitats-Sand/mud etc
2.Habitat FOCI-Seagrass
3.Species FOCI-Short snouted Seahorse, Native Oyster, Undulate Ray.
SBPA have objected to the grading of 5 for Seagrass and grading of 4 for Species on the grounds that there is no evidence to show that the eelgrass beds are receiving unsustainable and irreparable damage by human activity i.e., Anchoring. Secondly that the evidence put forward about the Species is “thin” and of “doubtful provenance”.
Seahorses, native oysters and Undulate Rays are found all around the coast of England and Wales. (See Natural England and Seahorse Trust websites). They must breed in these locations to account for their wide distribution. SBPA concludes that their inclusion in the case for making Studland Bay an MCZ is purely a case of “Beefing up the Dossier”.
Seagrass as we (we are all Conservationists) know is an important Marine habitat for a vast array of species and may need to be protected if it is being damaged by human activity. No such proof exists for Studland Bay. There has been excellent research carried out by BORG and we are all extremely grateful to “Old Harry” for his wise and reasoned comments above. We hope that common sense will prevail and that a much longer period of study into the eelgrass beds of Studland Bay will be initiated soon.

 

[Twister_Ken]

Osborne at Bay?

"In a clear attempt to redirect the coalition's green policies, the chancellor told parliament: "I am worried about the combined impact of the green policies adopted not just in Britain, but also by the European Union … "

Maybe it's being decided that cash-strapped UK Plc can't afford MMOs?

 

[oldharry]

"In a clear attempt to redirect the coalition's green policies, the chancellor told parliament: "I am worried about the combined impact of the green policies adopted not just in Britain, but also by the European Union … "

Maybe it's being decided that cash-strapped UK Plc can't afford MMOs?

It's what we have been saying all along, the writing is on the wall simply through lack of funding.

What we do NOT want though is sloppy legislation that is not enforced through lack of funds. When the govt decides it CAN afford it, a more hostile administration could give us a bad time if the legislation doesnt button it up now. The current bosses may overlook shortcomings, but who is to say what a future administration may make of it all, unless the framework is right? This is something that is of great concern to the RYA, seeing the cutbacks looming. They are pushing very much for workeable legislation so that precedents can be set and tested now, rather than 'reinterpreted' later on by a possibly more hostile government.

 

[Seajet]

Twister Ken & Old Harry,

agreed of course; though I can't imagine a more 'hostile' government, anything is possible !

Hopefully - surely - it would be politcal suicide for anyone standing up in the present financial climate and saying,

" As we're in big financial trouble we're chopping people's contractual pensions, also closing / paring down schools, hospitals and nursing homes,libraries, defence; Oh and by the way it seems a spiffing idea to spend ( an optimistic ) £0.8 million for 200 unwanted moorings at Studland, + maintenance, and fund 2 bods full time to run it - they'll need RIB's and probably landrovers, but that's OK " !

This has of course been very much the view taken by the 'Save Studland Bay' campaign on Facebook, and I do recommend that to anyone who hasn't had a look & joined.

The locals at Studland take the view that spending such money on moorings no-one except career conservationists wants would be ludicrous, and they are quite happy to go on looking after the beach & area, as they always have...

There is also the point that if this daft money and style of treatment were to be applied at Studland, what about all the many, many other places around the coast ?! ££££££ !